Open Stack

It is a violation of Board policy to discuss this off of a public mailing list. CCing the defcore mailing list for transparency.


4.1(b)(i) changes are substantially out-of-line with the intended meaning of that clause - the TC is intended to manage the technical matters of all aspects of the openstack project, not just the integrated release. I believe these changes are unnecessary and have negative side effects.

4.1(b)(ii) conflates the Integrated Release with the broader OpenStack project again. 

The introduction of the “OSP New Definition Date” into the Bylaws seems bizarre. Why don’t we vote and approve these bylaw changes once the OSP process is ready, and then simply change the paragraph - instead of preserving THREE different definitions of core in the Bylaws? (In that vein, the second-to-last paragraph of this clause could be struck entirely.)

4.1.(b)(iii) - Could we move the last sentence (posting to the website) into Section 7.3 for clarity?


Is it “Core OpenStack Project” or “OpenStack Core Project”?  4.13(c)(i) and 4.1 don’t match. (Ditto 7.4)

4.13(c)(i) Seems like it could be simplified. Again, it seems like all of 4.13 would be simpler without the introduction of the OSP New Definition Date.

4.15 - I strongly object to using DefCore-related bylaws changes to make non-cosmetic changes to the Legal Affairs committee. This should be a separate set of redlines and a separate vote.

4.15 - The legal affairs committee should strive to protect the entire OpenStack project ecosystem, not just the integrated release, no?

4.17(a) - Unnecessary change. The Integrated Release is *not* a replacement for the term “OpenStack project” - it’s a subset of the OpenStack Project, in the same way that Core is a subset of the Integrated Release. (ditto 7.4)

Ditto for 7.1(c) - The OpenStack foundation distributes project software beyond the boundaries of the Integrated Release, and we should continue to target ASLv2.0 for that.

7.3 - What does this mean? "The OpenStack trademarks shall only be used to promote the Foundation, the OpenStack Integrated Release or services related to the OpenStack Integrated Release as provided in the Trademark Policy.” I would think that the entire point of a trademark license would be for the licensee to be able to use the trademark under license to promote their own product or services.

Appendix 4, 3(b) - While I think this is an appropriate change, it’s actually out of scope for us to change the definition of ATC from “Core contributor” to “Integrated Release contributor” without checking with the TC. (Personally, I think ecosystem contributors should be considered ATCs as well). 

Appendix 7 - Do we actually want to restrict the CLA to only cover contributions to the Integrated Release? We will have no way to promote code from Incubation to Integrated status with this approach. Again, see my comments regarding Integrated Release vs. Project, above.




--

Joshua McKenty
Chief Technology Officer
Piston Cloud Computing, Inc.
+1 (650) 242-5683
+1 (650) 283-6846
http://www.pistoncloud.com

"Oh, Westley, we'll never survive!"
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has."

On Sep 8, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe at dlapiper.com> wrote:

> I would like to get your comments by Wednesday COB so we can post it for community comments.  Thanks.
>  
> From: Radcliffe, Mark 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:11 PM
> To: Rob Hirschfeld (rob_hirschfeld at dell.com); 'Joshua McKenty'
> Cc: Roay, Leslie; Eileen Evans Esq. (eileen.evans at hp.com); 'Alan Clark'; 'Jonathan Bryce'
> Subject: Updated Bylaws
>  
> I am enclosing the revision to the bylaws based on our discussion with the Rob to deal with issues from the Technical Committee. We have changed the approach to require the Technical Committee to get approval from the Board prior to making a change in the OpenStack Integrated Release which would delete any of the OpenStack Core Project. I also took another look the Standards provision in Section 7.4 and decided to make clear that it would not affect the new approach to determining the OpenStack Integrated Release and OpenStack Core Project.  I am enclosing a markup to the existing version.
>  
> This draft has been approved by the Legal Affairs Committee. Please review it and provide any comments so we can put it on the website for community review prior to the September 22 Board meeting Thanks.
>  
>  
> Please consider the environment before printing this email. 
> 
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster at dlapiper.com. Thank you.